Search results

I repeat there is no such thing as a "Human" without this defect. You cannot be human without it. Because if the gene was not broken you would have a smaller brain incapable of the level of intelligence that defines our very species.

Cutting out the parts of my argument you cannot respond is deceitful. We cannot be Human, as intellectual as we are, without being susceptible to Cancerous Growth within the Brain as the Gene contributes to inhibiting Brain Cancer would also inhibit the size of our Brain making us mere...

...You just dodged my point. You cannot be Human without this Gene which makes you more susceptible to Brain Cancer. It is physically impossible to be Human and not have this inactive Gene. How is that Intelligent Design? To be, in the image of God, you have to also be likely to develop...

Thanks. That's quite an error on my part. When I looked into what "e¯" meant I couldn't find anything so what resulted was "e¯" being assumed to have something to do with Electrons. I assume the "e" is actually separate to the "¯" and this would have been obvious to me if I was a little more...

Thank you for this post. As much as I want to sit back and put my feet up saying "There we've gotten through to the Creationist" there are a variety of issues they could nitpick at. One such nitpick I foresee by the slightly more Scientific Literate Creationists, a contradiction of terms...

If you are suggesting it is a parody I worry that you are just being optimistic.

I doubt your definition of Science is honest. Therefore either you are ignorant or lying. If you understood what Science was you'd probably not be arguing what you are. After all Radiocarbon Dating is used within Science with due caution as it should be as you are aware it has some issues that...

...Science works purely on observation and comparison of the natural world. Yet you deny it in favor of a book with unobservable claims. The thing about Science is that it's claims are testable and above all else repeatable. So if you really wanted to you could repeat the test yourself and...

Let's say it did change, just for the sake of argument, what indicators of this change would there be? Make a prediction of what we should be looking for that would prove that it changed. This argument usually comes down to somebody arguing that the Natural Laws of Physics somehow were...

...I don't even know where to begin with this. The Earth is estimated to be around 4.54 billion years old. The Universe is estimated to be around 13.8 billion years old. Radiocarbon Dating is a technique to estimate the age of organic materials.

Sorry I should of been more clear as I actually meant Chemical Disposition when saying "Wants" not a Conscious Choice. It's either that this was developed through Natural Selection, no Life that wasn't driven to pass on it's Genes would, or it is impossible for Life to exist without it. What I...

I would say Reproduction if we were talking about an individual but Survival works perfectly fine when referring to a Population. Take Insects that sacrifice their lives as a meal to the Female that isn't Survival for itself but it is for the Species or rather it's Genes. People might ask...

1. The Big Bang was when all Natural Laws came into being so technically the First and Second Laws of Therodynamics, just as any Laws of Physics, wouldn't nessicarily apply to before the Big Bang. Also nobody claims it came from "nothing" in fact Scientifically there is no such thing as...

Said just after I made a large and time consuming post! If I knew the person was unreachable I'd probably wouldn't of bothered.

Insulting you would demean my position in the discussion. But you do seem to have a misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution. So I'll try clarify it for you. Evolution cannot happen by choice. One of the most common misunderstanding is when Evolution happens. It takes place at conception. A...

You may of already received a reply of this nature already. You should look into Pharyngeal Arches and it's involvement in Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo) these Arches within Fish would become Gill Slits but in Mammals such as Humans or Whales they have been given a different...

I've given up on him. If he is going to bombard me with that much text, videos and documents I'm just going to assume it's a red herring. That he's trying to make it too time consuming for anyone to point out how wrong he is. This discussion would be long over before I'd have my "debunking" over...

The gene is within Humans and within in Great Apes it is an inhibitor of growth specifically it prevents the growth of Brain Cancer. If it is inactive you are more susceptible to Brain Cancer. However this is required for us to be so intelligent. Our Brains cannot grow as large as they can with...

This "curvature" isn't literal but another example of when Scientist use a poor choice of words to explain what is a counter intuitive subject. I assume you take it literally if you are arguing Scientist talk about "curved nothingness" even though empty space isn't as empty it appears. You also...

What if we knew exactly what this inactive DNA did? That we found it was active in another animal. An animal claimed to be related by descending from the same common ancestor? Who we have evidence shared traits with both animals? What if also I could point out another piece of inactive DNA...